It always seems like strange new technologies need an "angle" before mainstream media will produce stories. I think they found it with this stupid Silk Road website, which is now being positioned to represent the purpose of bitcoins.

I'm also worried about the Al Jazeera article because, when they are the first big reporters on a western-appealing topic, it seems that Fox News or another US media leader will typically follow with a more decisive story, only toned oppositely or phrased to create a wedge or political spin even on topics that aren't actually politically aligned to one party or another.

Now, to people who have never heard of bitcoins, being in favor of them paints you as an anarchistic narcotics user. Once Fox News makes a report, they'll probably be dubbed a currency that enables terrorism. "The children" will be brought into the discussion under some lame excuse, in much the same way that Second Life's currency was often portrayed as a way for your kids to pay for cyber-prostitution.

This is why we should prepare ahead and the bitcoin community should have a well-spoken, good-looking media contact who, in the coming weeks, would be able defend bitcoins and point out their many (majority) non-controversial uses and benefits. If this doesn't happen, then instead the major media players will find their own drama-inclined talking heads and prop them up as straw men bitcoin spokespersons, even if they poorly represent the community. Especially if they poorly represent the community.

It always seems like strange new technologies need an "angle" before mainstream media will produce stories. I think they found it with this stupid Silk Road website, which is now being positioned to represent the purpose of bitcoins.

I'm also worried about the Al Jazeera article because, when they are the first big reporters on a western-appealing topic, it seems that Fox News or another US media leader will typically follow with a more decisive story, only toned oppositely or phrased to create a wedge or political spin even on topics that aren't actually politically aligned to one party or another.

Now, to people who have never heard of bitcoins, being in favor of them paints you as an anarchistic narcotics user. Once Fox News makes a report, they'll probably be dubbed a currency that enables terrorism. "The children" will be brought into the discussion under some lame excuse, in much the same way that Second Life's currency was often portrayed as a way for your kids to pay for cyber-prostitution.

This is why we should prepare ahead and the bitcoin community should have a well-spoken, good-looking media contact who, in the coming weeks, would be able defend bitcoins and point out their many (majority) non-controversial uses and benefits. If this doesn't happen, then instead the major media players will find their own drama-inclined talking heads and prop them up as straw men bitcoin spokespersons, even if they poorly represent the community. Especially if they poorly represent the community.

I don't think that the drugs angle which mainstream media chooses to approach bitcoin is that bad. Haters gonna hate. Lovers gonna love. Most drugs should be legalized anyway.

The problem there, regardless of your opinion on drugs, is that they have attached bitcoin to a completely different debate. This act in the very least is committing a logical fallacy and at the worst is predisposing people to dislike or like bitcoin because of their stance on a separate issue. It also potentially creates a self-fulfilling fallacy in that, if bitcoin is introduced to people as a currency for drugs and illegal activities, then only people interested in those niche activities will start using bitcoins.

This is dangerous territory because bitcoin is a currency, and thus could be attached to practically any cause, any thing, or any idea. Attaching bitcoin to drugs, especially when you are introducing them to people, is about as ludicrous as saying that dollar bills are inherently bad because I make it rain in strip clubs or because every spree murderer in the past 20 years has been "known to hold dollar bills in his wallet."

I can play that game too. For example, Hitler used paper money. Do you like Hitler? Most every hired killer has been paid in dollars. The currency of choice for engaging in the sexual trafficking of minors is, gasp, US dollars! Personally, every time I have ever committed a sin or done something morally questionable, I'm pretty sure that dollars were involved. In fact, I have dollars in my wallet right now and I plan on spending them on booze, hookers, and reefer, just to prove a point.

And I'm only going to use my bitcoins to buy Bibles and make charitable donations.

Almost every day now, something about Bitcoin is posted on the Orlin Grabbe web site. It offers a good overview of what is being written about Bitcoin on the Internet, especially outside of Bitcoin-specific sites: http://orlingrabbe.com/

It always seems like strange new technologies need an "angle" before mainstream media will produce stories. I think they found it with this stupid Silk Road website, which is now being positioned to represent the purpose of bitcoins.

I'm also worried about the Al Jazeera article because, when they are the first big reporters on a western-appealing topic, it seems that Fox News or another US media leader will typically follow with a more decisive story, only toned oppositely or phrased to create a wedge or political spin even on topics that aren't actually politically aligned to one party or another.

Now, to people who have never heard of bitcoins, being in favor of them paints you as an anarchistic narcotics user. Once Fox News makes a report, they'll probably be dubbed a currency that enables terrorism. "The children" will be brought into the discussion under some lame excuse, in much the same way that Second Life's currency was often portrayed as a way for your kids to pay for cyber-prostitution.

This is why we should prepare ahead and the bitcoin community should have a well-spoken, good-looking media contact who, in the coming weeks, would be able defend bitcoins and point out their many (majority) non-controversial uses and benefits. If this doesn't happen, then instead the major media players will find their own drama-inclined talking heads and prop them up as straw men bitcoin spokespersons, even if they poorly represent the community. Especially if they poorly represent the community.

I don't think that the drugs angle which mainstream media chooses to approach bitcoin is that bad. Haters gonna hate. Lovers gonna love. Most drugs should be legalized anyway.

The problem there, regardless of your opinion on drugs, is that they have attached bitcoin to a completely different debate. This act in the very least is committing a logical fallacy and at the worst is predisposing people to dislike or like bitcoin because of their stance on a separate issue. It also potentially creates a self-fulfilling fallacy in that, if bitcoin is introduced to people as a currency for drugs and illegal activities, then only people interested in those niche activities will start using bitcoins.

My point is that people who is beeing introduced to bitcoin attaching it to drugs and buy that idea, maybe wouldn't be prepared to understand the concept any other way. Maybe.

And if they engage in some crusade against bitcoin, it is quite possible that it will only make it bigger and stronger.

I also think that we should prepare several levels of explaination for different levels of economic and technologic understanding.

In the case you mention, if someone dares to google bitcoin after being misled to it as a drug-only related currency and he finds that pretty well designed video that tells you can buy alpaca socks, probably would be inmediatly morally challanged by the image of alpaca socks in one hand and crack cocaine in the other and he would then get to decide.